N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VINC ENT A. C ALLENDER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. J. R A M M , C orre c tiona l Offic e r; SISNER OZ, De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s, and GUZM AN; e t

a l., De fe nda nts. No. 20-16251 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-00694-JAM -AC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 4, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAWK INS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED AUG 6 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff Vinc e nt C a lle nde r a ppe a ls thedistric t

c o urt’ s grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt to de fe nda

nt c orre c t i ona l offic e rs J. R am m and M . Sisne roz on his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c ourt-a c c e ss c la im and de rivative c onspira c y c la im . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. De v e re aux

v . Abbe y , 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th C ir. 2001). B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thehistory

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here . Inc arc e rate d pe ople hav e a First Am e n d

m e nt right of a c c e ss to thec o urts, but tha t right is lim

ite d to c la im s “ atta c k[ing] the i r se nte n c e s , dire c tly or c olla te ra lly ,” or “ c ha lle ng[ing] the c onditions of the ir c onfine m e nt.” Simmons v
. Sac rame nto C

t y . Supe rior C

t. , 318 F.3d 1156, 1160 (9th C i r. 2003) (quoting Le w i s
v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996)). To pre v a il on a right-of-a c c e ss c la im , a n inc a rc e rate d pe rson m

ust show “ a c tua l pre

judic e with re spe c t to c onte m plate d or
e xisting litiga

tion, suc h a s the a

bility to m e e t a filing de a dline or to pre se nt a
c la im .” N e v ada De p’t of C orr. v . Gre e ne , 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Le w i

s , 518 U.S. a

t 348). He “ m

ust ide nt ify

a ‘ nonfrivolous,’ ‘ argua

ble ’ unde rly ing c la i m ” and the spe c ific re m e dy he lost through “ a l le gations in the
c om pla i nt suffic ie nt to givefa ir notic e to a de fe nda nt.” C hristopher v . Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 415-16 (2002) (quoting Le w is , 518 U.S. a t 353 & n.3).
2The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t the re wa s no ge nuine disputeof
m ate ria l fa c t a s to pre

judic e from

the offic e rs’ a lle ge d de s truc t ion of C a lle nde r’ s le ga l m ate ria ls. Se eDe v e re aux , 263 F.3d a t 1076. Of C a lle nde r’ s the n-pe nding
c la im s, he ha d a

First Am e ndm e nt right to prose c ute only his fe de ra l ha

be a s c a se . Se e Le w is , 518 U.S. a

t 354-55. W

he n C a lle n de r’ s le ga l m ate ria ls we re de stroy e d, the d istric t c o urt ha d

a l re a dy dism isse d tha

t c a s e with pre

judic e and de nie d

a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility (C OA). 1 C a lle nde r ha d a lre a dy a pplie d for a

C OA in this c ourt, whic h wa s la

te r de nie d. 2 C a lle n de r’ s loss of his le g a l m ate ria l s the re fore did not im

pe d e his pursuit of his ha

be a s pe t ition. Nor ha s C a lle n de r a l le ge d inte rfe re nc e with a

ny c onte m plate d future c la im

with suffic ie nt spe c ific ity to give fa ir notic e to thede fe nda

nts. Se eC hristopher v . Harbury , 536 U.S. a t 415-16. AFFIRM E D
.

1 The de fe nda

nts’ re que st for judic ia l notic e of the m a g istra te judge ’ s Fina l R e port a n d R e c om

m e ndation, thedistric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l orde r, and the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in C a lle n de r’ s fe de ra l ha be a s c a se is gra

nte d. 2 C a lle nde r doe s not a lle g e tha t the de struc tion of his le g a l m ate ria l s im pe de d him from m oving for re c onside ration of theC OA de n ia l unde r Fe d. R
. App. P. 22-1(d). 3